/ 3 out of ten to vote tory in latest poll

This seems to being trumpeted in the press and radio as a good thing for torys and Cameron. Surely, after you take out the fringe lunatics that leaves about 50% for labour thank god. I know whose odds I'd rather have!

The poll I saw had tory at 32%, Lab at 39%, LD at 10% and UKIP at 10%.

So out of 10 people. 3 Tory, 4 Labour, 1 LD and 1 UKIP.

However all pretty meaningless because we don't have 1 constituency for the entire population and in some places 90% will vote Tory and in others 90% Labour. The first past the post system means that polls like this are largely irrelevant unless done in marginal constituencies.

Also, since turnout has been less than 50% for the last 2 elections I would hazard a guess that there would be more than 1 non voter in 10 in the real world.

> (In reply to Al Evans)
>
> The good news is that the electorate will probably put an end to this amateurish shambles, run by an arrogant bunch of blinkered, unpragmatic toffs, at the next election.

But what's the alternative? Labour have been utterly ineffective in opposition. They don't seem to have any ideas other than to violently oppose any proposed legislation and then subsequently admit that they can't commit to reversing it if they get voted in.

It is laughable that a party that is supposed to be left of centre opposes the reduction of child benefit for those earning over 50k.

Agreed. Very depressing. But Labour will most likely be pragmatic and more likely to listen to advice. Sometimes a lack of baggage (particularly an idealogical rather than realistic agenda) can be a healthy starting point. But, above all else, this government, has to be thrown out because of the way it has lied systematically to parliament (over BSkyB and Murdoch) particularly, and more generally how it allowed the lowest echelons of the phone-tapping gutter press right into No. 10 itself. And a thousand other very sneaky and dishonest moves (often when people's attention was elsewhere, e.g. trying to sell off the National Forests.) Desperate damage is being done in the most poorest and most difficult parts of society, with councils being strangled. Totally undemocratic; not what the people who live in those councils want i.e. wonderfully lower council taxes at the cost of crucial services being cut.

It all comes down to such nasty words as democracy, honesty (including a lack of hypocrisy) and fairness. If they get those simple, basic things right, the Tories will just walk back at the next General Election.

In reply to Edradour: Isn't it the oppositions 'job' to voice an argument against whatever the leading party puts forward? That way everyone hears both sides of the story and can vote according to their beliefs!

I'm sure in practice that's not how it would work and the vote is probably influenced by a whole manor of twisted influences but I always thought that was the theory of how parliament worked.

> But, above all else, this government, has to be thrown out because of the way it has lied systematically to parliament (over BSkyB and Murdoch) particularly, and more generally how it allowed the lowest echelons of the phone-tapping gutter press right into No. 10 itself.

Youd prefer to bring back a Labour government because the Conservatives have failed on this front? I have to say I didn't really think either of them came out with any roses from that affair.

> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
> [...]
>
> But what's the alternative? Labour have been utterly ineffective in opposition. They don't seem to have any ideas other than to violently oppose any proposed legislation and then subsequently admit that they can't commit to reversing it if they get voted in.
>
>

Balls has been screaming for two years how it might be a good idea to invest in the country's infrastructure............hold on a minute.....

> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
> [...]
>
> Sorry - are you talking about the Tories, or the last Labour administration?

Both! Sadly....

Politics seem to be more 'short-term popularity contests', playing-up to prejudices, fears etc. (sometimes these fears are manufactured).

It makes me wonder how the NHS, social security got started; were the majority of voting people poor & in need of it, was it noblesse oblige/guilt of richer people, the 'all in it together' effect of wars? Or was it just the 'right thing to do' and everyone agreed to the 'dream of a better future'?

In reply to thin bob:
I think we need 15-20 years of semi-benevolent dictatorship to get rid of all this populist short term nonsense. You can't allow people who are only worried about public opinion in a couple of years time to make decisions in a balanced way or to implement structural reforms at a suitable pace.

> It makes me wonder how the NHS, social security got started; were the majority of voting people poor & in need of it, was it noblesse oblige/guilt of richer people, the 'all in it together' effect of wars? Or was it just the 'right thing to do' and everyone agreed to the 'dream of a better future'?

'all in it together' - yes, WW2

'dream of a better future' - yes, WW1 soldiers were promised "a land fit for heroes" so when that didn't happen the WW2 servicemen in particular were determined to vote for Labour as most likely to deliver NHS/Welfare State (although I think Beveridge Report had cross party support).

> (In reply to thin bob)
> You can't allow people who are only worried about public opinion in a couple of years time to make decisions in a balanced way or to implement structural reforms at a suitable pace.
>

I don't think the current lot are making decisions based purely on public opinion in a couple of years. They are resolute in their determination to follow through with their deficit reduction programme which is a pretty unpopular set of policies. Same with welfare reform (though I've yet to see a valid argument against welfare reform).

Sadly it looks like more or less no change at all from the last election if you think of the Right as a whole.

Cons + UKIP is a majority and mid term support for UKIP may not translate into election results, it doesn't normally.

The TV debates could be interesting, after last time when so many punters thought Clegg was the new sliced bread, there's no guarantee that people won't make the same emotional mistake twice but also if UKIP have managed an equal footing with the LibDums in the polls does it mean we'll see Farage and his rabble rousing on TV debates?

It'll probably be decided by the Bulgarians, if sufficient numbers take up the offer of free hoover boots for all then Farage will have a field day.

> (In reply to Al Evans)
>
>
> The TV debates could be interesting, after last time when so many punters thought Clegg was the new sliced bread,

Which didn't translate into electoral success with the LDs actually losing seats overall.

Farage's 'rabble rousing' is appealing to a large number of people who don't want to be in Europe and I suspect has far more popular support than 10% shows. Unfortunately for UKIP those that support their policies but not the party are probably more likely just to abstain entirely. Fairly dismissive to call it 'rabble rousing'. Cameron is so worried about it that he's pretty much gambling the whole election on a referendum on the EU in an attempt to stop people drifting to UKIP or not bothering to vote.

Milliband made a serious error by saying that Lab would definitely not be having a referendum.

The LDs will get destroyed at the next general election. Which is unfortunate and incredibly short sighted on the part of LD voters.

> (In reply to Al Evans)
>
> 3 out of 10 to vote Tory in latest poll.
>
> And the question was: what proof is there that people don't learn from their mistakes?

Isn't the problem here that labour actually spent all the money, maxed out the credit card, sold all our gold. I'm not a Tory fan, but just voting labour back in, won't magically bring the good times back.

> (In reply to Edradour)
> [...]
>
> Balls has been screaming for two years how it might be a good idea to invest in the country's infrastructure............hold on a minute.....
>
> E

He has, but he's also opposed most of the cuts and proposed tax reductions to stimulate the economy. At the same time we have unavoidable rising health and pension costs, whilst actual tax reciepts are lower becuase of the recession. It's well acknowledged in the Labour party that he is using the benefit of not being in power to support policies he couln't implement if in power.... it's just politicking.

In reply to Chris the Tall: Latest tory joke on the poorer classes is that they are going to reduce the number of peadriactic nurses because it will be better for the kids because the ones kept on will be better and therefore do a better service all round. Excuse me, but even the most stupid tory voter has to be able to see the fallacy in this?
Less nurses more work for those left, a poorer service.

> (In reply to Chris the Tall) Latest tory joke on the poorer classes is that they are going to reduce the number of peadriactic nurses because it will be better for the kids because the ones kept on will be better and therefore do a better service all round. Excuse me, but even the most stupid tory voter has to be able to see the fallacy in this?
> Less nurses more work for those left, a poorer service.

I think most people would like more nurses......
More nurses, more policeman, more doctors, more trains, more buses, more bin collections, more midwives, more teachers, better schools, better hospitals, decent pension, more tax breaks, less council tax.
How do you suggest we pay fot it Al? We already have the highest debt in history?

> Latest tory joke on the poorer classes is that they are going to reduce the number of peadriactic nurses because it will be better for the kids because the ones kept on will be better and therefore do a better service all round. Excuse me, but even the most stupid tory voter has to be able to see the fallacy in this?

"Nursery nurses", not paediatric nurses - ie staff who work in childcare settings such as day nurseries (paediatric nurses would work in the health service)

Doesn't change the dubious logic though - the underlying thinking is presumably to make childcare "more affordable", and encourage mums of young children back into the workplace, and very little at all to do with improving standards.

> I think most people would like more nurses......
> More nurses, more policeman, more doctors, more trains, more buses, more bin collections, more midwives, more teachers, better schools, better hospitals, decent pension, more tax breaks, less council tax.
> How do you suggest we pay fot it Al? We already have the highest debt in history?

Less politicians? ;-)

Only half joking - moves here to a unitary authority would make significant savings.

> (In reply to winhill)
> [The TV debates could be interesting, after last time when so many punters thought Clegg was the new sliced bread,]
>
> Which didn't translate into electoral success with the LDs actually losing seats overall.

Which the LDs put down to yoof voters not getting out on the day, although they did slightly increase the numbers.

>
> Farage's 'rabble rousing' is appealing to a large number of people who don't want to be in Europe and I suspect has far more popular support than 10% shows. Unfortunately for UKIP those that support their policies but not the party are probably more likely just to abstain entirely. Fairly dismissive to call it 'rabble rousing'. Cameron is so worried about it that he's pretty much gambling the whole election on a referendum on the EU in an attempt to stop people drifting to UKIP or not bothering to vote.

It's definitely rabble rousing because of the type of politics involved. People may not like Europe but definitely not like UKIP (there's a far left anti euro thing too).

Cameron is panicking because the Tories get so bent over europe and anyone who is different.

Personally, I take the view that Europe brought down Margaret Thatcher, nothing to do with the Left, it's self destruct tory nimbyism.

When Heseltine crawled out of bed a couple of weeks ago it was a delightful déjà vu. He may have had to buy his own furniture but he knows where the knives are kept and he has form for using them.

> (In reply to Al Evans)
> [...]
>
> "Nursery nurses", not paediatric nurses - ie staff who work in childcare settings such as day nurseries (paediatric nurses would work in the health service)
>
> Doesn't change the dubious logic though - the underlying thinking is presumably to make childcare "more affordable", and encourage mums of young children back into the workplace, and very little at all to do with improving standards.

Thats his usual leftist style. Spout wrong and uninformed rubbish on a forum and then dissapear for bit

In reply to Hirosim:
Harsh & unfair!
this is a politics debate, so almost by definition everyone is spouting rubbish My turn now:
Every 5 years we get a poor choice between two bunches of dogmatic chumps. I still can't say I place much trust in Milli & Balls, and I hope the Tories lose, if only so we don't blunder into an exit from the EU, which would be crazy. I'd vote for anyone opposed to HS2.

> (In reply to moraldecay)
> [...]
>
> Isn't the problem here that labour actually spent all the money, maxed out the credit card, sold all our gold. I'm not a Tory fan, but just voting labour back in, won't magically bring the good times back.

It was a flippant remark i made, but will answer you.

I don't support labour anyway.

My family and myself have always struggled on the bottom rung. What good times? I haven't seen them once in 50 years, never mind their return

> (In reply to Al Evans)
> [...]
>
>
> I think most people would like more nurses......
> More nurses, more policeman, more doctors, more trains, more buses, more bin collections, more midwives, more teachers, better schools, better hospitals, decent pension, more tax breaks, less council tax.
> How do you suggest we pay fot it Al? We already have the highest debt in history?

> (In reply to Simon_Sheff)
> [...]
>
> It was a flippant remark i made, but will answer you.
>
> I don't support labour anyway.
>
> My family and myself have always struggled on the bottom rung. What good times? I haven't seen them once in 50 years, never mind their return

Chill baby, not sure why flippant.
I thought the country generally had been relatively (perhaps falsely) affluent in the last decade, my comment was that - Labour certainly saw it that way. Sorry for you if you've had it hard, my point was it doesn;t matter who comes in labour, tory, times are times

In reply to Simon_Sheff: Our apparent wealth in the Nu Labour years was all illusory. It was based on inflated house prices that were inflated by easy credit that was lent badly and the toxic debts were hidden in wrapped securities and sold on to ...( eventually ) the governments i.e you and me. We also outsourced our manufacturing to cheaper geographies, whilst spending the increased profits on our increasing consumerism and higher welfare privaledges. We have managed to sustain this illusion through borrowing ever larger amounts of money.

Completely unsustainable

We are in the decline, soon to be death throes and there is nothing left in the locker to stop it. Especially when most of the electorate are on some form of benefit or another (turkeys voting for ...)
Our votes at the next election will count for fck all squared. So you may as well all vote for the best looking or funniest politician for all the difference its going to make.

no need for that bud. Plenty have had it much harder than me. Not fishing for sympathy, just pointing out hat many many people didn't profit from the so called good times. Recession? It's just pointing business as usual for many, with added abuse. And persecution from the right wing govt and press. And to judge by many comments on this site, the modern climbing community. See thread on poor bastard killed robbing a betting shop.it's not black and white, none of us know his story, yet so many cast their stones. Probably the same people who support British jobs in the arms trade making firearms, who think that's fine as long as they're not used on our streets.

I think they are being brave making all these changes at once (and not a bit stupid in the sheer number and significance of them). I think change tends to get more key negative votes than it should, as positives are received with mild thanks but negatives make the key people angry enough to increase chances of revenge. The key people are of course lower middle class swing voters in marginal constituencies.. the rest of us can rant and rave all we like but its not worth a jot as our votes won't change anything.

As such the government should be annihilated at the next election with all these key people pissed off with one change or another and not thankful enough for stuff that did work. Also its pretty certain now that the economy will still be tanking and blaming it on the last lot won't wash by then. The current polls in this context ARE good news for the Tories. The opposition in contrast seem most guilty of choosing a leader that said key voters struggle to warm to (hence the polls in my view).

At least the last lot had the excuse of a global crash for the mess they left.. irrespective of the rewriting of an imaginary history that claims this lot would have been significantly more prudent in power... left, centre or right wing parties in the west all had the same order of problem (just the right had things like lower taxes rather than higher spending to justify the debt). Also, the last lot if they had scraped in would have been way more cautious in their policy. How odd that Labour are now the conservative party.

In reply to Al Evans: VAT has a lot of positives as a tax. Drug dealers pay VAT, bank robbers pay VAT, you and I pay VAT. It can be raised at will with relative ease and you the tax payer have a modicum of control over how much you pay. Give up smoking, drink less, buy secondhand.

The fact that rich people pay the same VAT on a packet of fags is irrelevant, they get collared for more tax elsewhere.

> (In reply to Al Evans) VAT has a lot of positives as a tax. Drug dealers pay VAT, bank robbers pay VAT, you and I pay VAT. It can be raised at will with relative ease and you the tax payer have a modicum of control over how much you pay. Give up smoking, drink less, buy secondhand.
>
> The fact that rich people pay the same VAT on a packet of fags is irrelevant, they get collared for more tax elsewhere.

...and a loaf of bread might be 1/30th of someone's income..or a new car 1/30th of someone elses'..how many cars do you need?

I'm not sure a wordpress blog written by two people aligned with the Labour Housing Group can be relied upon to give an unbiased take on the figures.

We have been in recession for the majority of the current electoral cycle which means that GDP is shrinking, % spend will, therefore, increase.

I think you would have a tough job arguing that Labour's economic policy 2001-2010 wasn't rash. Even the current Labour front bench have admitted that they cannot reverse the austerity cuts because the deficit must be reduced.

> But what's the alternative? Labour have been utterly ineffective in opposition.

The media claim that they have been utterly ineffective in opposition, and sure they have not been perfect, but they are on course for a clear majority in parliament after the next election so deserve some credit!

> (In reply to Edradour)
> [...]
>
> The media claim that they have been utterly ineffective in opposition, and sure they have not been perfect, but they are on course for a clear majority in parliament after the next election so deserve some credit!